USGIF GotGeoint BlogUSGIF promotes geospatial intelligence tradecraft and a stronger community of interest between government, industry, academia, professional organizations and individuals focused on the development and application of geospatial intelligence to address national security objectives.

Search

December 06, 2016

The IEA has projected that a cumulative $44 trillion in investment will be needed in the global energy supply over the next 15 years. Another $23 trillion will be required for energy efficiency improvements. Worldwide 40% of energy is consumed by buildings. In the U.S. 70 % of electric power goes to buildings. Measures aimed at improving the efficiency of buildings have been introduced in Europe, the U.S., Japan and other jurisdictions.

Zero energy buildings

Zero energy buildings are loosely defined as buildings that generate as much energy as they consume. But there is as yet no single standards body defining what a zero energy building is. Different countries and even within the same country different bodies define zero energy buildings in different ways. According to a new report from Navigant Research, global zero energy building revenue is projected to grow from less than $100 billion in 2016 to $1.4 trillion by 2035.

Nearly zero energy buildings in the E.U.

The European Union (EU) has taken a leading role in focussing energy conservation efforts on the energy efficiency of buildings. The EU has mandatory carbon emission reduction standards, referred to as the 20-20-20 standard, which among other things requires the EU to improve energy efficiency by 20% by 2020. Another important objective is reducing its dependence on imported energy, which currently accounts for half of EU energy usage. In 2002 the European Commission promulgated the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) which requires all EU member states to upgrade their building regulations and to introduce energy certification schemes for buildings. About a year ago the European Commission (EC) proposed a new Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) , also known as the EPBD recast, which imposes a legal obligation for all member states to establish energy saving schemes, with the public sector leading by example.

Energy efficiency is especially critical for Germany which not only needs to comply with the 20-20-20 standard, but also to find energy sources to replace its (non-emitting) nuclear power plants that are scheduled to be closed by 2022. In Germany buildings currently account for 40 percent of power consumption and a third of CO2 emissions. The German 40 year master plan calls for aggressive energy efficiency policies including new insulation standards and for all buildings in Germany to be refurbished in line with the new insulation standards by 2050, reducing energy requirements for heating by 20 percent by 2020 and by 80 percent by 2050, and providing tax relief on energy taxes to companies contributing to energy savings.

A major area of focus in the EU is “nearly zero energy” buildings. A nearly zero energy building on average over a year generates as much energy from renewable energy sources as it consumes. For new buildings, the EPBD recast fixes 2020/2021 as the deadline for all new buildings to be designed to be nearly zero energy. For public buildings the deadline is even sooner, by 2018/2019.

Zero emissions buildings in Japan

Japan‘s announced mid-term emission reduction target is to cut Japan's GHG emissions by 25% by 2020 compared with 1990, subject to international negotiations. But Japan has said that it plans to revise this target in light of the Fukushima accident and presumably in light of the decision to shut down its nuclear power plants by 2040. According to an analysis by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), the largest reduction will need to be realized in commercial sector, by about 27%. Residential/commercial-sector accounts for 30% or more of final energy consumption and has increased remarkably compared to the industrial and transportation sectors. Energy saving measures for commercial buildings are urgently required, since the commercial sector including office buildings consumes more than half of total energy consumption in the residential/commercial sector. Moreover its growth has been more striking than that of the residential sector.

The Government of Japan put forward its "zero emissions buildings" target in April, 2009. It defines a zero emissions building (ZEB) as one that has net zero CO2 emissions on an annual basis through energy efficiency and renewable energy generation on-site. The announced objective ia that all new public buildings will be zero emissions by 2030.

Zero net energy buildings in the U.S.

The U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) requires that by 2030 all new Federal facilities must be "zero net energy" (ZNE) buildings. On October 19, 2007, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopted aggressive targets for ZNE

All new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2020

All new commercial construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030

50% of existing commercial buildings will be retrofit to ZNE by 2030.

According to the New Buildings Institute (NBI) there are 332 ZNE (zero net energy) verified and emerging commercial and multifamily buildings in the U.S. and Canada. The ZNE buildings on this list have either achieved or committed to the goal of producing as much renewable energy onsite as they consume over the course of a year.

November 23, 2015

Energy performance modeling for buildings is a new field, but one that is getting a lot of interest under the impetus of government mandates and incentives. It's so new that there is no set of standard best practices. Energy modelers are having to make it up as they go. But this area is growing rapidly, and as government mandates for zero-energy buildings kick in, it is expected to grow exponentially. A Navigant Research study estimated that the energy efficient building market reached $307.3 billion in 2014 and that it will grow to $623.0 billion in 2023.

According to the 2014 scorecard released by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) Germany is #1 out of the 16 nations studied in the World for energy efficiency. In Germany buildings currently account for 40 percent of power consumption and a third of CO2 emissions.

In September 2010 the German Government released a 40 year masterplan for revolutionizing the German energy supply that includes an aggressive plan for energy conservation focusing on reducing the energy demand from buildings. According to the plan new insulation standards are to be introduced the government wants all buildings in Germany to be refurbished in line with new standards by 2050. It also wants to cut the national heating requirement by 20 percent by 2020 and by 80 percent by 2050. Germany is part of the EU which is very aggressive in improving the energy efficiency of buildings.

The EU Energy Saving Ordinance mandates a 25 percent reduction in energy use for all new residential and non-residential buildings built from January 1, 2016. And as of 2021, the EU’s nearly zero energy standard will apply to all new buildings.

The EIA has just released information on building energy efficiency programs in China. Unlike many other countries, the Chinese government has focused a lot of regulatory attention on existing buildings. The overall objective of the Chinese government is to raise the level of existing buildings to satisfy regulations governing new construction. In 2011, the government implemented regulations that mandated a 10% reduction in energy consumption per square meter for commercial buildings by the end of 2015. It also mandated a 15% reduction for commercial buildings with more than 20,000 square meters of floor area.

Energy certification of buildings is a key policy instrument for reducing the energy consumption and improving the energy performance of new and existing buildings. In the U.K. since 2008 public buildings over 1,000 m2must display a Display Energy Certificate (DEC). DECs document the actual energy usage of a building and look similar to the energy labels provided on new cars and electrical appliances. In the U.S. six cities and two states have passed laws requiring energy benchmarking of existing buildings. It is estimated that these laws will affect 4 billion ft2 of floor space in major real estate markets. In Australia commercial buildings 2000 m2 and over are required by the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act 2010 to have a Building Energy Efficiency Certificate (BEEC). In Jakarta a new green building code became mandatory for existing and new buildings in early 2013. The code covers all large buildings in Jakarta including office buildings, shopping malls and apartment buildings larger than 50,000 square meters; hotels and healthcare facilities larger than 20,000 square meters; and educational facilities larger than 10,000 square meters.

The European Union's SUNSHINE program is intended as a step towards toward standards for measuring the energy performance of buildings and a way to contribute to improving the energy efficiency of buildings. SUNSHINE is based on open standards such as CityGML from the OGC.

In the United States according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), buildings are responsible for 65 % of electricity consumption. An important motivation for energy efficient buildings in many jurisdictions are aggressive building codes that push energy efficiency. For example, the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24) is one of the first “green” building codes. Other motivations are customer driven certification such as LEED and other "green" certification - LEED v4 incorporates up to 18 credits for demand response - and financial incentives from local governments and power utilities to reduce energy consumption, peak load or both.

Government mandates for zero energy buildings (ZEB) have been introduced in E.U., the U.S. and Japan. According to Navigant Research, global ZEB revenue is expected to grow from $629.3 million in 2014 to $1.4 trillion by 2035.

Energy performance modeling is an essential tool for estimating the energy requirements of a new or existing building. An energy performance analysis can determine how much energy a building will consume in a year, assess the most cost effective insulation and glazing, and assess other things that can be done as part of the building design to optimize energy usage. An energy analysis requires data - geometry of the building, performance characteristics of materials, geolocation and orientation of the building, and so on. Simulation applications include local environmental conditions and involve thermal modeling, daylight and airflow simulations. Thermal modeling includes energy consumption, thermal comfort, CO2 emissions, renewable energy integration, and electric power load. Natural lighting includes visual comfort (glare) and the reduction of energy use through natural lighting. Airflow simulation includes external wind simulation, internal airflow simulation, clean room ventilation, and reduction in electrical load as a result of using natural ventilation.

There are many energy analysis tools available (lighting, thermal, emissions, water usage, etc) , many are very complex, and the volume of data that is required is increasing exponentially. Many energy modelers follow a best-of-breed approach so interoperablity is a major challenge in improving productivity in energy performance analysis.

Increasingly for energy modelers the natural place to start is with a Building Information Model (BIM). There are several reasons for this. First of all it is what many of the energy performance analysis packages expect and it is supported by the gbXML standard. Secondly it allows all the information required by the architect, engineers and construction contractors to be accessed in one place. And thirdly it helps in communicating the results of the energy performance analysis to the people who need it including heating and cooling, lighting and other types of engineers, all of whom may require the same information but communicated in different ways.

October 26, 2015

According to the 2014 scorecard released by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) Germany is #1 out of the 16 nations studied in the World for energy efficiency. In Germany buildings currently account for 40 percent of power consumption and a third of CO2 emissions.

Energy efficiency of buildings

In September 2010 the German Government released a 40 year masterplan for revolutionizing the German energy supply that includes an aggressive plan for energy conservation focusing on reducing the energy demand from buildings. According to the plan new insulation standards are to be introduced the government wants all buildings in Germany to be refurbished in line with new standards by 2050. It also wants to cut the national heating requirement by 20 percent by 2020 and by 80 percent by 2050. Germany is part of the EU which is very aggressive in improving the energy efficiency of buildings. The EU Energy Saving Ordinance mandates a 25 percent reduction in energy use for all new residential and non-residential buildings built from January 1, 2016. And as of 2021, the EU’s nearly zero energy standard will apply to all new buildings.

According to the ACEEE scorecard Germany is ahead of most countries in implementing energy conservation policies and measures for buildings. (The IEA provides a listing of German energy conservation policies and measures.) But Germany came in second to China in the ACEEE assessment of its progress in improving the energy efficiency of buildings. The ACEEE assessement focussed on several criteria for building efficiency including energy intensity in residential buildings, energy intensity in commercial buildings, residential building codes, commercial buildings codes, building labeling, appliance and equipment labeling, and building retrofit policy.

The EIA has just released information on building energy efficiency programs in China. Unlike many other countries, the Chinese government has focused a lot of regulatory attention on existing buildings. The overall objective of the Chinese government is to raise the level of existing buildings to satisfy regulations governing new construction. In 2011, the government implemented regulations that mandated a 10% reduction in energy consumption per square meter for commercial buildings by the end of 2015. It also mandated a 15% reduction for commercial buildings with more than 20,000 square meters of floor area.

The Green Building Action Plan of 2013 mandates that more than 400 million square feet in residential homes in the northern heating zone must be refurbished to meet new construction standards by the end of 2015. (According to the World Bank 46% of residential floor area is in “severe cold” or “cold” regions.) In addition all commercial buildings in the same zone must be renovated to meet the standards by 2020.

Energy labeling

In 2006 China started a green building labeling initiative called Three-Star Rating Building System. This system required buildings to be assigned a rating of one to three stars using several criteria. These include land usage, energy and water consumption, material efficiency, indoor environmental quality, and operational management. The Three-Star Rating Building System departs from the LEED standard in assigning categories based not only on a building's design but also on the building's performance over one year of operation.

Appliance and equipment labeling

China began an energy efficiency labeling program in 1998 with a voluntary energy efficiency labeling program. Then in 2005, a mandatory energy information label was introduced that assigned appliances to categories based on their energy efficiency. This program is similar to the European Union categorical energy label.

Green building codes

In 1986 China issued the first building energy code in 1986 for residential buildings in the northern heating zone. These regulations mandated a 30% reduction in space heating energy consumption compared with 1980 reference buildings. For each of China's four climate zones (severe cold or cold climate, hot summer/cold winter, and hot summer/warm winter), there are three energy codes for residential buildings. There is one code for commercial buildings. Regulations are mandatory except in rural area where residential energy codes are voluntary.

Even with these regulations, from 1998 to 2012 energy consumption of buildings in China grew by about 7.7% per year. This is ascribed to rapid economic development and the rapid rise in personal incomes in China during this period allowing people to acquire and use more appliances. In addition China's buildings are inefficient compared to developed countries. It is estimated that buildings in China use 2-3x more energy per square meter for heating than buildings in comparable temperature zones in Europe or the US. Furthermore thermal comfort is significantly lower in China.

September 17, 2015

According to the annual ranking by the Global Green Economy Index (GGEI) Vancouver is the world's fourth greenest city. The most recent GGEI analysis covers 60 countries and 70 cities. It tracks how investors rank the appeal of cities and countries as markets for green investment and it provides a global measure of performance in key efficiency sectors, including buildings, transport, tourism and energy. It also integrates environment & natural capital measuring perceptions and performance in environmental areas like air quality, water, forests and agriculture. According to the GGEI the top three greenest cities are Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Stockholm. The countries corresponding to these cities (Denmark, Netherlands, and Sweden) also rank high, in the top 5 country rankings. Canada is 12th. The Nordic cities have achieved their high standing with the help of their respective national governments, whereas Vancouver has achieved its high green ranking on its own with little help from the federal government.

How did Vancouver do this ?

I have blogged on several occasions about geospatial developments at the City of Vancouver. Vanmap, which is the City's geospatial portal, was an early development that has supported a number of the City's green initiatives. Vancouver was one of the first cities that made its geospatial and other data open and free.

Yesterday at Ottawa's City Hall, Andrea Reimer, Vancouver's Deputy Mayor, described in a fascinating presentation how Vancouver achieved its high GGEI ranking and its plans to rise even higher to become the world's greenest city by 2020. In addition the City has recently committed to running 100% on renewable energy by 2035. This means only green energy sources for electricity, heating and cooling and transportation.

This all started about a decade ago, when a public consultation about greening the city attracted an incredible 2300 people. The enthusiastic response was unexpected. It cost participants ten dollars and the organizers were expecting something on the order of a few hundred people. It turned out that they had to change the venue twice to accommodate everyone. The mega response clearly showed a tremendous interest in green by Vancouver's citizens. From this beginning Vancouver's greenest city initiative has continued to be a grass roots movement supported by the City government.

The City started off with some quick start projects which had high visibility and were inexpensive. These included separated bicycle lanes, provision for organic waste (food scraps), a deconstruction bylaw, drinking water stations, community gardens, urban commercial farms, green buildings, city power utility that generated electricity by burning sewage and waste, commercial car sharing, and an urban forest initiative.

The City developed the Greenest City Action Plan (GCAP) which focussed on 10 goal areas addressing three overarching areas of focus; zero carbon, zero waste and healthy ecosystems. The 10 goal areas were arrived at by a process of public consultation.

The Greenest City Action Plan includes commitments to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions, both from City operations and the community; generate 100 per cent of electricity from renewable resources; and implement the greenest building codes in North America. This commitment has helped stimulated the local green economy. 5% of all jobs in Vancouver are green and Vancouver is among the top 10 green technology clusters. World-leading companies such as Westport Inovations (advanced natural gas engine-maker), General Fusion (nuclear fusion), Ballard Power Systems (hydrogen fuel cells) and Saltworks Technologies (waste water remediation) are based in Vancouver. In Vancouver's case economic development and greening the city have gone hand in hand.

The results of the greenest city initiative to date are impressive; for example, 8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, 18% reduction in waste going to landfills or incinerators, 18% reduction in water use per capita, 19% increase in jobs in the green sector, 30% increase in food assets, and 10% increase in trips by bicycle, on foot or using public transit.

Vancouver's greenest city initiative is an amazing story with concrete measurable achievements. As David Chernushenko, Ottawa City councilman, said in his comments after Andrea's presentation, there is no reason from a technology perspective that other cities such as Ottawa cannot follow in Vancouver's footsteps with their own solutions reflecting their unique environment. But the key ingredient that enabled Vancouver's green revolution is broad public participation, which Vancouver had right from the beginning.

November 29, 2013

The Ottawa Chapter of the Canada Green Building Council last evening hosted a very informative presentation by Jamie Shipley and Thomas Green from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) on lessons learned from CMHC's EQuilibrium Communities Initiative and EQuilibrium Sustainable Housing Demonstration Initiative.

The EQuilibrium Communities Initiative are four sustainable community demonstration projects jointly funded by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). The initiative provided financial assistance to developers of the neighbourhood projects for research and technical activities to improve, monitor and showcase their performance in the six areas; energy, water and stormwater, protection of the natural environment, land use and housing, transportation and financial viability.

Jamie Shipley, a researcher with CMHC, gave an overview of the four EQuilibrium Communities projects: Station Pointe Greens in Edmonton, Alberta; Ampersand in Ottawa, Ontario; Ty-Histanis neighbourhood development 10 km from Tofino, British Columbia; and the Regent Park Revitalization in Toronto, Ontario, all of which are completed or near completion at this point. The achievements that Jamie described for these projects are quite remarkable and perhaps most remarkably because they have not increased costs significantly over what they would have cost if just built to meet the local building code.

Station Pointe Greens

Station Pointe Greens is a transit-oriented development 300 m from a light-rail transit station in a former industrial area northeast of downtown Edmonton. The Communitas Group Ltd. is building 219 co-operative homes, with mixed uses, in the form of mid- and high-rise construction, with some townhouses, all targeting Passive House criteria. (Passive House is a desing standard developed in Europe for reducing the energy consumption of houses. In Canada energy consumption can be reduced through PH by 80% or more). An ecological wastewater ("black" water) treatment facility has been installed in-site as part of the project.

The project has reduced energy requirements for heating and cooling by 90% compared to what would be required if the buildings had been built according to the Alberta Building Code. By installing green rooves, 50% of the site is classified as green. This also reduces storm water runoff. 100% of waste water is treated on site and reused as gray water. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this project is financial. The total cost was 1% above what it would have cost if built to code. This is quite a mremarkable achievment as buildung houses to the Passive House standard in Canada can require 10% more expenditure than building to code.

Ty-Histanis

Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations (TFN) is developing a new community on 84 hectares of land near Tofino. The neighbourhood will 162 residential lots, up to 215 housing units, an elders’ complex, and a variety of community facilities located in the Community Core. By the end of 2012 all infrastructure is in place and 43 housing units had been built.

A key objective of the project is a 50 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases (GHGs) through energy reductions by using a district energy system using renewable energy sources and ground source heat pumps as well as building envelope improvements. At least 40 per cent of the development site has been maintained as undisturbed, natural habitat. Through the use of porous pavements only 14% of the total site surface area is classified as impermeable.

Ampersand

Ampersand is a transit-oriented development being developed by Minto. Phase 1 incudes 300 units in the form of stacked townhouses and 4-storey condominium apartments. One block of this development (14 units) is net-zero energy.

The project has a high level of pedestrian connectivity with access to high-quality community parks, commercial outlets, the existing OCTRANSPO bus transitway and Ottawa’s proposed Light Rail Transit. Remarkably, tree canopy coverage is 30 % of the site. A 30% reduction in energy usage compared to code has been achieved through a district heating system, solar PV on the rooves of the net zero energy buildings and improved building envelopes, appliances and mechanical systems.

Regent Park

Revitalization of Regent Park is transforming Canada’s oldest and largest social housing community into a mixed-income community for 5,100 households. The EQuilibrium Communities initiative supported Phase 1, which includes over 1,000 townhouses, mid-rise and high-rise units, either market condominiums or affordable rental units for low to moderate income residents. This part of the project is fully occupied. Phase 1 also has 5,000 square meters of commercial, retail and community agency space.

One of the main objectives of the project is a high quality pedestrian environment with walking access to public transit, jobs, civic amenities and commercial outlets. This is a relatively high desnity development, but has been able to a achieve 30%-40% tree caopy coverage.

Energy consumption is 40 to 50 % lower than building to the Model National Energy Code for Buildings (MNECB) throgh energy-efficient building envelopes, lighting, appliances and mechanicalsystems and a district heating system that uses commercial waste heat for residential heating.

The project uses 40-60% less potable water through low-flow fixtures, water-efficientlandscape design and tenant education. It also reduces runoff volume by 50 per cent through the use of green roofs and porous pavements.

Affordability is a key goal of this community development: 35 per cent of homes are market rental and all units have rents lower than the area average or are rent-geared-to-income.

August 01, 2013

A new energy efficiency bill the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013 (S. 761), which was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senators Shaheen and Portman, has been reported out of committee. This bill, which appears to have broad bipartisan support, (for example, 3 Republican and 2 Democratic cosponsors), provides goals, incentives, and support for energy efficiency efforts across the U.S. economy including residential and commercial buildings and industry.

Provisions

This is a very far reaching bill that could have dramatic impact on the energy efficiency of buildings by modifying building codes, encourage energy efficient commercial buildings through financial incentives, recognize energy efficient appliances by creating a Supply Star certification system, encourage replacement of energy inefficient transformers by commercial building owners and others through a rebate program, and encourage Federal agencies to conserve energy through natural gas-powered and electric vehicles.

Buildings

Update building codes

Support the updating of the model building energy codes to enable the achievement of aggregate energy savings targets for commercial and residential buildings. The baseline for updating model building energy codes would be the 2009 IECC for residential buildings and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for commercial buildings.

Develop and adjust targets in recognition of potential savings and costs relating to efficiency gains made in appliances, lighting, windows, insulation, and building envelope sealing; advancement of distributed generation and on-site renewable power generation technologies; equipment improvements for heating, cooling, and ventilation systems; building management systems and SmartGrid technologies to reduce energy use.

Research on zero-net-energy buildings

In consultation with building science experts from the National Laboratories and institutions of higher education, designers and builders of energy-efficient residential and commercial buildings, code officials undertake studies

feasibility, impact, economics, and merit of code improvements that would require that buildings be designed, sited, and constructed in a manner that makes the buildings more adaptable in the future to become zero-net-energy after initial construction, as advances are achieved in energy-saving technologies.

code procedures to incorporate measured lifetimes, not just first-year energy use, in trade-offs and performance calculations; and legislative options for increasing energy savings from building energy codes, including additional incentives for effective State and local action, and verification of compliance with and enforcement of a code other than by a State or local government.

Worker training and capacity building

Provide grants to institutions of higher education to establish building training and assessment centers to identify opportunities for optimizing energy efficiency and environmental performance in buildings; to promote the application of emerging concepts and technologies in commercial and institutional buildings; to train engineers, architects, building scientists, building energy permitting and enforcement officials, and building technicians in energy-efficient design and operation; to assist institutions of higher education and Tribal Colleges or Universities in training building technicians; to promote research and development for the use of alternative energy sources and distributed generation to supply heat and power for buildings, particularly energy-intensive buildings;

Private commercial building energy efficiency financing

Establish a program ‘Commercial Building Energy Efficiency Financing Initiative’ to provide grants to States to establish or expand programs to promote the financing of energy efficiency retrofit projects for private sector and commercial buildings; such as a a revolving loan fund; a program to promote the use of energy savings performance contracts or utility energy service contracts, or both; a utility on-bill financing or repayment program; utility energy efficiency programs for all segments of the utility industry; or a leasing structure that recognizes energy costs and addresses split-incentives.

Industrial efficiency and competitiveness

Reform DoE energy efficiency programs

Reform and reorient the industrial efficiency programs of the Department of Energy; to establish a clear and consistent authority for industrial efficiency programs of the Department; to accelerate the deployment of technologies and practices that will increase industrial energy efficiency and improve productivity; to accelerate the development and demonstration of technologies that will assist the deployment goals of the industrial efficiency programs of the Department and increase manufacturing efficiency; to stimulate domestic economic growth and improve industrial productivity and competitiveness; and to strengthen partnerships between Federal and State governmental agencies and the private and academic sectors.

Supply Star

Establish within the Department of Energy a Supply Star program to identify and promote practices, recognize companies, and, as appropriate, recognize products that use highly efficient supply chains in a manner that conserves energy, water, and other resources; consult with other appropriate agencies; and coordinate efforts with the Energy Star program; promote practices, recognize companies, and, as appropriate, recognize products that comply with the Supply Star program as the preferred practices, companies, and products in the marketplace for maximizing supply chain efficiency; work to enhance industry and public awareness of the Supply Star program;

Electric Motor Rebate Program

Establish a program to provide rebates
for the purchase and installation of a new constant speed electric
motor control that reduces motor energy use by not less than 5 percent.

Electric Transformer Rebate Program

Establish a program under which rebates are provided to owners of industrial or manufacturing facilities, commercial buildings, and multifamily residential buildings for the purchase and installation of a new energy efficient transformers.

Federal agency energy efficiency

ICT energy efficiency

In consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the Administrator of General Services, issue guidance for Federal agencies to employ advanced tools promoting energy efficiency and energy savings through the use of information and communications technologies, including computer hardware, operation and maintenance processes, energy efficiency software, and power management tools.

Natural gas and electric vehicle infrastructure

Measures to support the use of natural gas vehicles and electric vehicles or the fueling or charging infrastructure necessary for natural gas vehicles and electric vehicles

Federal data center consolidation

Publish a goal for the total amount of planned energy and cost savings and increased productivity by the Federal Government through the consolidation of Federal data centers over a 5-year period.

Assessment

Accoridng to an article by the World Resources Institute (WRI), the Shaheen-Portman bill focuses on sectors and areas with known energy-savings potential.

Residential, commercial, and industrial sectors accounted for two-thirds of U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2011.

Buildings, industry, electric motors, and transformers have large energy-savings potential.

The federal government has been identified as the fourth-largest single source of U.S. emissions.

March 27, 2013

At the Canadian Water Network conference
we heard a fascinating presentation by Helmi Ansari, Director, Sustainability and Organizational Capability, PepsiCo Foods on how PepsiCo has reduced its water (and energy and waste) footprint and some of the business challenges specific to the water industry they have encountered.

PepsiCo is known internationally for its water conservation efforts. Last year it won the Stockholm Industry Water Award for its 20 percent improvement in global water efficiency since 2006.

PepsiCo Foods Canada has 8 plants and 16 distribution centres in Canada and about 7000
employees. PepsiCo's sustainability mantra is "leave no trace". The long term vision is to run its business so as to
leave no trace on the planet. The vision is very
aspirational, but I was quite surprised by how much real progress has been made.

It started started in the early 90's when Pepsico created "green teams" in their plants. The teams were responsible for environmental
compliance. Then in the late 90s resource conservation teams were added. Their goals were to reduce
use of natural gas, electricity and water by 30 %, 25 % and 50 %, respectively,
for every unit of food that they made. Then in 2008 an initiative aiming at "net zero" plants was started.

Their interim commitments are aggressive

Improve water
efficiency by 75 %,

Reduce manufacturing fuel usage by half

Reduce fleet
fuel usage by half

No manufacturing plant and distribution centre waste going to landfills

Lead in sustainable packaging innovation

The latest data shows that water efficiency has improved by 46 %. Over 99% of
the waste generated in PepsiCo Foods plants and distribution centres does not
go to landfills. According to Helmi this is the highest in the world for this type of
industry and PepsiCo Canada was the first Pepsico subsidiary to achieve
this objective. Fuel usage is down by a quarter, and
fleet fuel usage is down by a quarter as well. They have implemented heat recovery in every
one of their plants. According to Helmi they have the largest all-electric fleet in the world, and have just completed
the one millionth mile driven in all electric vehicles.

Reusing waste heat

Helmi gave an an example of energy saving through repurposing waste heat. PepsiCo makes SunChips at their plant in Cambridge, Ontario. They had a large boiler burning natural gas to produce steam to cook the chips. After about a three year research and engineering effort, they were able to turn the boiler off because they are now cooking potatoes using waste heat from another process. SunChips for all of Canada are now being
cooked using waste heat that used to go up the stack into the atmosphere.

Net zero plant

Another impressive example is an entire plant that can run virtually off the water and electricity grid. The Frito-Lay plant in Casa Grande, Arizona produces over a 100 million
pounds of food a year. In 2010 the plant received LEED Gold certification, apparently the first for a renovated food production plant. Last year the whole plant was declared "near net zero" meaning it runs 90-100% off the grid, 90-100% of the water is recycled and over 99 % of its waste does not go to a landfill. It has 36 acres of solar cells in an adjacent field; its own membrane bio-reactor waste water treatment plant, with the treated water being reused in the plant, and a large boiler that burns landscape waste from a 75-mile radius, providing all of the plant's steam. According to Helmi it is the only large scale food plant with this level of sustainability.

Net zero using "potato water"

To make 4000 or 5000 pounds of potato chips per hour used to require about 120 gallons of water
per minute. A few years ago recycling technology was introduced which reduced water consumption to 60 gallons per
minute. After investing in more technology this was further reduced to 25 gallons per minute. They are now looking at running the plant with "potato water", using the water in potatoes (potatoes are 80% water) much of which now goes up the stack as steam during the cooking process. They calculate that if they can run their large chip plants entirely on potato water that would save
a billion liters of water per year.

From a water conservation perspective, these are impressive achievements. And you might expect that there were financial benefits that contributed to motivating PepsiCo to improve water efficiency, but surprisingly this is often not the case.

Business benefits ?

A major business benefit of a plant that can run on little or no water, is that it can be located in arid parts of the world, like Phoenix, Arizona, which is near where the Casa Grande plant is located. Most of us would expect that another important business benefit of using less water is that it woud reduce costs. The reality is quite different because of the way the water industry works.

At one of their plants in a small town where PepsiCo was the only
major industry they were able to reduce water consumption by 40%, but
they found that next year their water bill went up 40 %. When they talked to the water utility, they were told that the utility worked on a fixed cost basis, and since the Pepsico plant was the only major industrial water consumer, rates had to be increased otherwise the water utility wouldn't be able to meet its obligations to its suppliers.

There is another problem. When a plant uses a lot of water the effluent is very dilute, but as less water is used the effluent becomes more concentrated. For example, reducing water consumption from 120 gallons/minute to 25 gallons/minute means the plant's effluent becomes roughly five times more concentrated. At one of their plants that managed to reduce water usage by 55-60%, they are now having to pay much more for waste water treatment and their total water-related costs have actually increased.

Pepsico is at a point where as they continue to be more water efficient in North America, they're not seeing a financial benefit. Their most water efficient
plants are in Europe, North, Africa, and Australia where the pricing
structure is very different and they are rewarded for conservng water.

Unsustainable water service delivery model

Don Lowry, past President and CEO of EPCOR Utilities, gave his perspective on what is a pervasive North American water problem, a water service delivery model that is not sustainable. North American industries that use water are caught in
yesterday's paradigm of regulation which does not recognize the total cost of water, from acquisition through to treatment and re-injection. Because water is managed on a fragmented
basis, top water efficiency performers like PepsiCo are being penalized. PepsiCo is being charged at the top rate because the pricing structure was
designed with a view to punish people who have high concentrations. According to Don
breweries are in a similar situation. As they
have become more efficient, their effluent has become more concentrated and as a result their water-related costs have gone up, to the point where many of them are looking at how they can convert their effluent into something else so they can avoid high waste water treatment charges.

Water as a free commodity

According to Don the fundamental problem is that water is treated as a free commodity. The water pricing model means that you are not being charged based on the volume of the commodity you consume, but on the
cost of processing it to convert it to a potable state. If it was priced as other commodities are, such as natural gas or oil, conservation would be very financially rewarding.

February 07, 2013

In the U.S. buildings are responsible for 72% of U.S. electricity demand, 55% of U.S. natural gas demand, and 40 % of U.S. CO2 emissions. 36% per cent of the buildings electricity load is due to commercial buildings.

California has some of the most aggressive mandated emissions reduction targets in the country. They include

33% renewable energy by 2020

Reduction of GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020

The California Public Utilities Commission's Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan calls for 60% to 80%
statewide reduction in electrical lighting consumption by 2020. (lighting accounts for nearly 30% of California's electricity use.

New residential construction to be net-zero by 2020.

New commercial construction is to be net-zero by 2030.

Governor Brown’s Executive Order B-18-12 calls for a 20% reduction in state energy purchases by 2018.

LEED

The US Green Building Council is responsible for the enormously
successful LEED program. Currently 10.3 billion square feet have been
registered, of which 2.7 billion square feet has been certified under
the LEED program. According to the USGBC, currently 1.7 million square
feet are LEED certified every day.

Last year at Distributech the US GBC and its partners
Environment Defense Fund, Lawrence Berkeley Lab, and Skipping Stone
launched a LEED-DR pilot program (DRPP) designed to encourage the
adoption of demand response among owners of commercial buildings who
have generally lagged in adopting DR.
Southern California Edison (SCE) is a major sponsor of the LEED-DR
initiative.

Demand response at Southern California Edison

This year Mark Martinez of SCE gave an overview of SCE's DR program. In the U.S., commercial buildings represent 36% of the electricity load, but the majority of commercial building owners have shied away from DR programs. A number of reasons are given for this.

Limited number of energy focussed facility managers

Lack of familiarity with utility DR programs

Perception that DR is disruptive

Concerns over loss of control

Lack of specific knowledge around costs/benefits

Concerns over ongoing operation changes

In the past utilities have paid major users, typically large industrial customers, not to use electric power at times of peak load. The process has typically been manual, managed by telephone.

But now SCE is reaching out to a much broader group of consumers necessitating automated demand response (ADR). Its approach for motivating commercial customers to adopt ADR is both a carrot and a stick.

The carrot

For nonresidential new construction SCE offers financial incentives, $300 per kW of verified automated load shedding and up 100% of the incremental cost of DR enabling equipment.

The stick

Given the state's aggresive emissions reduction program many building owners can see the writing on the wall as the state moves in the direction of mandating DR through the state building code.

The California Energy Code, part 6 of the California Building Standards Code which is Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, were created by the California Building Standards Commission in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically by the California Energy Commission to allow incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.

For example, smart lighting is now mandatory in California. The California Energy Commission recently updated its Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, improving what “up to code” means by 25 percent for residential buildings and 30 percent for commercial buildings. The new standards, which take effect January 1, 2014, introduce requirements for photosensors, occupancy sensors and multi-level lighting controls. In the not too distant future, many expect that DR will also be mandated through the building code.

The benefits to commercial building owners from participating in SCE's DR program are

Incentives for early adopters that won't be available when DR is mandated.

Avoid retrofit costs later.

Claim LEED points

From SCE's perspective the LEED-DR program helps get people to start thinking about DR when they design buildings.

DR and peak load management

Many utilties are finding that DR is the least cost and best fit for
peak load management. It is much cheaper than building additional
gas-fired 'peakers". Automated DR will enable SCE to shed load much more rapidly than is currently possible. The California ISO, which is responsible for operating most of the grid in California, currently does not count DR as a dispatchable resource because it is not as fast and reliable as the ISO would like. As DR becomes more automated, it should move in the direction of becoming a dispatchable resource.

LEED DR credits

The basic requirement for LEED-DR credits are that the building must be capable of shedding 20kW or 10% of load whichever is greater. They can sell this to an aggregator or to the utility.
To earn LEED DR credits the owner needs to demonstrate curtailment. This often means that tenants and others participating in the program will require training.

In June after a mandatory ballot, LEED V4 including LEED DR will come into force. At that time developers who satisfy the requirements for LEED DR will get full LEED credits.

Jean gave an overview of the state of the art for energy performance modeling for new buildings. To summarize, there are a lot of energy analysis tools (lighting, thermal, emissions, water usage, etc) , many are very complex, and the volumes of data that are required is increasing exponentially. Interoperablity is one of the biggest major challenges that is inhibiting productivity in energy performance analysis.

Energy performance modeling is a new field, so new that there is no set of standard best practices. Energy modelers are making it up as they go.

Another important factor inhibiting the full benefit of energy modeling is that it is rarely used in the conceptial design phase of a building project when its impact would be most significant. In Jean's experience he is called in after the architect has completed the basic design, during the design development and construction documentation phases. This late in the game there are severe limits on what can be changed to optimize building energy performance.

One of the most, if not the most important, motivations for conducting an energy analysis for a new building in Ontario are programs run by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) that provide direct payments not ony for reducing the energy load of a building but also for the energy analysis itself. The program that Jean cites most often is the High Performance New Buildings (HPNC) program that pays $400 to $800 to the builder for every kW of electric power saved over what is mandated by the Ontario Building Code (ASHRAE 90.1 2010). Regulation is also starting to be an important factor as well. In Ontario there is a new regulation that requires that any building with 40% or more glazing has to be 5% more efficient than ASHRAE 90.1.

Trends

There are important trends that are emerging that point to where the industry is headed.

BIM

First of all, from Jean's perspective the natural place to start energy modeling is with a Building Information Model (BIM). There are several reasons for this. First of all it is what many of the energy performance analysis packages expect and it is supported by the gbXML standard. Secondly it allows all the information required by the architect, engineers and construction contractors to be accessed in one place. And thirdly it helps in communicating the results of the energy performance analysis to the people who need it including heating and cooling, lighting and other types of engineers, all of whom may require the same information but communicated in dfferent ways.

Interoperability standards

From Jean's perspective the big challenge is getting the right information stored in the BIM model into the energy performance analysis package. Jean sees interoperability as having the biggest productivity impact on the energy analysis process. Jean has put a lot of effort into streamling the flow of building properties from the BIM model to the energy analysis package. He relies on the gbXML open schema to transfer building properties stored in the BIM model to engineering analysis tools.

Jean has focussed particularly on hospitals and reports that after working on several hospitals he has optimized the process so that starting from paper architectural drawings, he can develop the BIM model, compile energy performance parameters, generate gbXML, and conduct a complete energy analysis (daylighting, thermal analysis, etc) for the proposed building in only two weeks. People in the audience were astounded at how quickly Jean is able to do this. One person cited several months as their typical experience in doing an energy analysis of a building design.

Getting the biggest bang for the buck

Jean showed a fascinating graph that compared the energy reduction impact of various strategies. I and a few others were surprised that daylighting, reducing the need for electric lighting, is one if the easiest strategies to implement and is one of the most effective way to reduce energy usage by a building.

Training and education

One of the challenges that has to be addressed, and that educational programs like this one organzed by the CaGBC, is making everyone involved in construction, but especially those involved in the early conceptual design phase, more aware of energy modeling. Currently on many design/build projects, one group does the conceptual design, which is then handed over to a second delivery group that developes the schematic design and builds the building (and often leaves detailed design to the construction contractors.) Jean rarely gets a chance to work with the conceptual design group, who are often not that conversant with energy performance of buildings and the important implications some of their design decisions have for the energy performance of the finished building. By the time the delivery group calls Jean in to conduct an energy analysis, design decisions that could have dramatically changed the energy profile of the building have already been made and at that point are cast in stone.

Future

The future is net zero energy buildings. I have blogged about the mandated objectives for near zero energy buildings in the EU, the emerging objectives for zero emissions buildings in Japan, and the Federal objectives for net zero energy buildings in the U.S. Buildings that either use net zero energy or even contribute more energy back to the grid than they consume are clearly the future. But getting there will require changes in how we design and build.

First of all, from Jean's perspective energy analysis has to happen earlier in the design/build cycle. Secondly, it will require much more collaboration than is typical of the overwhelming majority of construction projects. Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) where everyone involved in a project work in the same big room is an example of the type of collaborative approach to construction projects that could enable much greater energy savings.

Some of the things that are on Jean's radar as we move toward net zero energy buildings are ASHRAE 189.1 a standard for the design of high-performance green buildings, standard building energy modeling procedures and guidelines (COMNET), and the zero energy performance index (zEPI), which is the ratio of the energy
performance of a building to the average energy consumption of a
similar building at the turn of the millennium that is operated in a
similar climate, for similar hours of and similar operating conditions.

June 21, 2012

This week I spent a few days at the American Public Power Association (APPA) National Conference in Seattle. The priority issues facing APPA members in 2012 are similar in many respect to those facing the entire electric power industry, but there are certain aspects of the unique characteristic of APPA members that differentiate them from investor owned utilities (IOUs). They are all government owned, but have the ability to 100% debt finance capital investment. They also tend to have a close relationship with the local community and are better positioned for developing successful community-based programs such as energy efficiency.

By way of background, the APPA, which is based in Washington DC, is a not-for-profit, non-partisan service organization founded to advance the public policy interests of its members. It represents most of the more than 2,000 community-owned electric utilities in the US. Most public power utilities are owned by municipalities, but some are owned by counties, public utility districts, and states. For example, all of Nebraska is served by public power. APPA members also include joint action agencies (state and regional consortia of public power utilities) and state, regional, and local associations that have purposes similar to APPA.

Regulation, fuel mix and power rates

The utility industry as a whole is facing interesting times in the U.S. The electric power industry is getting more complcated as Mr Crisson emphasized repeatedly.

At the top of the list of things that the APPA is concerned about is regulation. This has not always been the case for public utilities, because they are government and in the past most of the regulation came from their municipal governments. But this year Federal regulation, especially that from the EPA is directly affecting public power utilities. One third of public utilities generate power and a significant proportion of that is from coal-fired plants. Related to the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), the closure of 26 GW of coal-fired capacity has already been announced. Estimates of the total coal plant closures range between 40 and 70 GW and even higher. The APPA is very concerned about the time frame for compliance of three years. As a measure of that concern, the APPA has filed suit against the EPA for the first time in its history with a petition for reconsideration asking the EPA to grant additional time to public power utilities to meet the MATS standard.

It seems certain that the fuel mix for electric power generation is going to change significantly in the short term. Speakers at the APPA event were very pessimistic about the future prospects for coal. The alternatives that APPA members are considering are energy efficiency, renewables, nuclear, hydro (small and large scale), and natural gas.

Energy efficiency

For many APPA members the cheapest "alternative fuel" is energy efficiency and this is an area for which municipal utilities are in a much better position that IOUs because they are part of government and can participate directly in the process of setting energy efficiency standards for building codes.

In 1990 Burlington voters approved a bond to fund energy efficiency programs. Since 2003, Burlington Electric Department (BED) customers and all Vermont electric customers pay a small monthly Energy Efficiency Charge (EEC) that supports efficiency programs. The City's annual electricity consumption in 2009 was about 2 percent greater than in 1989. BED has been able to meet the energy needs of a growing local economy over the last 19 years through efficiency. BED estimated that energy efficiency investments save Burlington consumers more than $10.1 million of retail electric costs annually. BED's energy efficiency program began in 1991 with Burlington Electric Department's Guidelines for Energy Efficient Construction, that was adopted for state wide construction. BED has a very high proportion of LEED-certified buildings.

Both Tacoma Power and BED said that they are not only participating in writing building codes, but also in inspection and enforcement, something that I suspect it would not be possible for an IOU to do.

Natural gas

The alternative fuel that is getting the most attention is natural gas, because reserves appear to be substantial as a result of hydraulic fracturing technology, and the price of natural gas in the U.S. domestic market continues to be exceptionally low. Henry Hub prices ended at $2.18 per MMBtu last week. But there are concerns about security of supply, the future of natural gas prices and the effect of LNG exports on prices. Many utilities are not convinced that this is the silver bullet.

In addition more EPA and other agency regulations are expected in the future, for example, on CO2 emissions and toxics and CH4 emissions related to shale gas and hydraulic fracturing. Increasing EPA and other Federal agency regulations are expected to lead to increased fuel prices and more decomissioning of coal-fired capacity. Some speakers even foresee similar regulation being applied to natural gas fired plants as is currently shutting to coal-fired capacity.

One speaker, Art Berman, argued that because of the depletion of conventional reserves and the unexpectedly rapid decline in production from shale-gas wells, 2-3 years for a shale-gas well versus 20-30 years for a conventional well, reserves are significantly overstated. He cited evidence from the Haynesville shale-gas play that without new wells, production would decline 48% per year.

Berman believs that increasing demand, for example from fuel switching from coal, the rapid decline in production from shale-gas wells and environmental regulation will likely raise natural gas prices. He argued that the industry needs a $7 price to be commercially viable.

Nuclear power

Another alternative fuel type is nuclear. I attended a standing-room-only presentation by Nuscale, a small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) manufacturer, that claims that its small scale reactor is able to shut down safely in the event of a station blackout, which is what occurred at Fukushima Daiichi. Nuscale has announced its first US customer, South Carolina Gas and Electric, and is the planning stage to build a SMR plant at Savannah River. Other manufacturers of SMR reactors include Babcock & Wilcox and Westinghouse.

Hydro

In some parts of the country there is interest in medium scale hydro projects, especially because hydro provides dispatchable capacity. Intermittent power creates demand for capacity that can be ramped up rapidly (dispatchable) which includes hydro, gas-fired, and storage batteries and pumped hydro. Snohomish County PUD has just commissioned a 8.3 MW hydro project at Young's Creek, the first new hydro project in Washington state in 20 years and expects to build more in the future. Even in California where large scale hydro is not considered to be renewable, Sacramento Metropolitian Utility District (SMUD) is actively pursuring a 400 MW 3 unit variable speed pumped storage hydro project at Iowa Hill, primarily because it would provide dispatchable capacity to backstop intermiitent sources. I blogged previously about Switzerland intending to use similar pumped hydro capacity to become "Europe's battery."

Department of Energy

The Department of Energy (DOE) has sent a memorandum to the Power Marketing Agencies (PMAs) requesting them to take a leadership role in the DOE's goal of creating a more secure and sustainable electric sector nationwide. The PMAs are instructed to include NERC reliability standards, integrate variable resources, enable scheduling on an intra-hour basis, support centralizing dispatch, include responding to solar flares and minimize cyber-security vulnerabilities in their strategic and capital improvement plans. The APPA in a response to the memorandum says that these proposals will result in increased electricity rates for BPA (Bonneville Power Administration), WAPA (Western Area Power Administration), SWPA (Southwestern Power Administration), and SEPA (Southeastern Power Administration) customers.

Workforce issues

A major issue facing electric power utilities, and other utilities, that was called out by Mr Crisson as a priority was workforce turnover, often referred to as the aging workforce. I have blogged about this problem many times and it was gratifying to hear the CEO of the APPA call this out as a priority issue.

Technology and innovation

There was a lot of discussion of new technologies that are transforming the electric power grid including advanced grid technology, often referred to as smart grid, power storage technology including large scale lithium ion batteries, electric vehicles, small modular nuclear reactors, and distributed generation (typically small scale intermittent sources such as wind and solar). The challenge for a historically conservative industry is to focus more on innovation in order to speed up the rate of adoption of new technology.